HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - Jan. 19, 20211
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Town of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 19, 2021
PRESENT:
Ed Bergman
Scott Davis
Kathy Jett
Elana Maragni
Bruce Richards
Jody Scriber (Chair)
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner David West
Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member)
Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers
Public Jeff Ayars, Marc Berger, Claudia Braymer, Nora Brown, Jeremy Craig, Justin
Craig, Ted Crane, Toby Dean, Kevin Feeney, Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor),
Katharine Hunter, Michael Nelson, Kim Nitchman, Russ Nitchman, Linda Santos,
Adriel Shea, Kelly
This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform.
The meeting was opened at 7:00pm.
(1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW
The selection of a Vice Chair was added as agenda item number eight.
(2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor) suggested adding the selection of a Vice Chair to the agenda, which was
done.
Ted Crane read a prepared comment that addressed the Planning Board treating all applicants equally and
not indicating in any way that it might consider incorporating factors that are not part of law and regulation
into a decision. His explained that this statement was to explain his reasoning for a comment he had made
at the previous meeting.
2
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Linda Santos said she was the real estate agent for Ted Melchen and was present in support of his request
for subdivision approval and to answer any questions the Board might have (regarding the subdivision
sketch conference on the agenda). Chair Scriber said she would be able to speak when they reviewed that
project.
In response to a question from Marc Berger, Planner West said privilege of the floor was the chance for
people who are not applicants to say something. Mr. Berger said the flag lot on E. Miller Rd. that was on
the agenda (as an informal review of sketch site plan) was the property adjacent to him. He said he did not
know what would come up, so he did not know what to say about it at that particular moment. But he
thought it worth mentioning that next week there would be a hearing on an Article 78 challenge to the BZA’s
issuance of a variance with regard to that piece of land. He said he had definite questions about the sketch
but confirmed that nothing determinative was happening at this meeting. He asked if any comments he
might have could come later when it was actually being considered. Gagnon said that, while privilege of the
floor allows people to comment outside of a matter that is theirs to be considered, the chair has the
discretion to allow other comments later if they wish.
Town Planner West read a letter he had received from Stanford Miller in opposition to any construction on
the tract of land on Hornbrook Rd. that was on the agenda. Mr. Miller said it has been designated as
wetland and asked that it be left in its natural state.
(3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Approve the December 15th minutes
Moved by Bergman, seconded by Richards
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber
(4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT
Leslie Connors (Town Board member) shared the following information:
• She encouraged people to attend the Planning Group meetings. She said at the last meeting
Planner West gave a great presentation on tools to influence development and to preserve open
space; it can be accessed on the Town website. She said that if you want to know if there is a
meeting, you can go to the calendar on the Town website.
• The Planning Board has one vacant seat, and the Town has received three applications. She said
the Town Board meeting was the following day and interviews would be happening th en. She said
she had sent the Board copies of the applications and people could email her with questions.
(5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
3
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
• Project: Subdivision Sketch Conference
Location: 6.-1- 18.25 – Hornbook Rd
Applicant: Edward Melchen
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Declaration of Lead Agency and Classification of Land
Division
Project Description: The Applicant proposed subdividing the northern part of this 3-part parcel
where it is divided by Hornbrook Rd. This will result in a total of 3 lots as the portions of the parcel
on the southern sided of Hornbrook do not share a boundary. Applicant requests guidance on
subdivision process for separating these parcels including a classification of the land division and
guidance on required plat specifications.
Planner West established that Mr. Melchen was not at the meeting, but Ms. Santos was there as a
representative. He said the applicant had submitted a fairly complete package for a sketch plan . He said he
had outlined questions for the Board to consider in the memo he provided, and the most important was how
the subdivision would be classified, which is complicated by the fact that Mr. Melchen’s parcel is oddly
shaped. When the piece Mr. Melchen wants to subdivide is removed, it will create two other lots instead of
one, making it a standard subdivision rather than a minor subdivision. West said the other question is what
additional things the Board would like to see on the plat. He specifically noted that the survey does not
show the wetlands, which is a normal requirement for a subdivision plat.
Ms. Santos said one map in the materials shows an overlay of the wet area, but it is not always the most
accurate when you have an overlay, and sometimes mapping programs are using different sets of
coordinates, which can create a slight misalignment. In her experience of the land, there is not anything wet
close to the road as it shows up on the map; there is a lot of dry land right on the road front.
Regarding wetlands, Bruce Richards said it was similar to the recent Nitchman subdivision where there was
some question of what was included in the wetlands. (Mr. Nitchman later clarified that their map had the
wetlands clearly delineated and the Board was considering buffer requirements). Richards said he thought
they needed to get the wetlands defined, and the part that was classified wetlands should not be
considered in any building lot. In his drive-by, he was not clear where someone would put a house. Ms.
Santos pointed out that the current proposal was only for subdivision approval, although any buyer would
want to know if they could build. Richards said that creating the lot means the Board assumes someone will
build on it. He said he agreed with Crane’s earlier statement about living with things for a very long time,
and he was not sure that parcel could stand alone and support construction.
Ed Bergman said the lot would need a well and septic; if it is wetland, that could be a concern. Ms. Santos
said any building for residential use would need a septic permit, and the Health Department would have
purview over that. She said one consultant who has been to the site gave the opinion that the site was
viable with the right system. Richards pointed out that a septic system was listed in the Short
Environmental Assessment Form that was submitted. In response, Ms. Santos explained that it was new
for the applicant to be asked to fill out all the paperwork, and he was making an educated guess as to what
would happen with the lot.
4
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Scott Davis said the wetlands matter is broader than whether a septic can be on the property, and they
want to consider the impact on the wetlands. Kathy Jett said she agreed with that and said she thought
they needed more information in regard to that issue.
Planner West said the Board should consider (1) additional things they want to see in the plat, (2) whether
the Board would like the remaining portions of the lot surveyed, and (3) if the Board wanted to review the
proposal as a standard subdivision or a simple (minor) subdivision. He said it sounded like the Board was
suggesting either showing the overlayed wetlands or doing a delineation so they could evaluate the
wetlands on the site. West explained that there is a lot of flexibility in the way the Board implements the
subdivision regulations; the Board can waive requirements. When doing a standard subdivision, there is a
set of additional requirements, including a 100’ wetland margin setback for any buildings, and it is usually a
slightly longer process. This allows the Board to ask for more, which is more applicable for a neighborhood
subdivision than in this case, but the threshold is three lots. He said the Board could decide to consider it a
standard subdivision but choose to waive some requirements.
Davis thought they could reduce everything to defining exactly where the wetland is and then deciding how
much of a buffer the Board wants. Planner West said that for this meeting the Board only needed to decide
what to request from the applicant. Chair Scriber summarized that everyone wanted to hear more about
where exactly the wetlands are. Ms. Santos said she would be happy to meet with anyone who wanted to
walk the lot.
Richards said he thought they should consider it a standard subdivision, even if they are able to waive
some requirements, so as not to give up any options as they move forward. Bergman agreed given that
there were wetlands are involved; he wanted to have as much flexibility as possible to make sure they
protect them.
Ms. Santos said, regarding the question of surveys for the remaining lots, it puts a significant financial
burden on the owner, and she asked for the Board’s consideration of the costs; she thought it would not be
an insubstantial sum of money to require a seller to s pend up front. She noted that it seemed to her the lots
already exist as stand-alone and what they are asking for is formal recognition of these stand-alone lots.
Richards said he thought the surveys would be straightforward, but he was not worried about requiring
surveys for them; the real concern was the stream, the way the land lies on the north side of the road, and
having enough information to make sure a residence would not be a detriment to the area.
Whether to have a public hearing at the following meeting was discussed. The conclusion was to wait on
scheduling a public hearing. This was because the deadline for next month would be a week from this
meeting, making it hard to get the wetland information in time, and the Board wanted to review the new
information about the wetlands.
MOTION: Declare the Planning Board Lead Agency
Moved by Richards, seconded by Bergman
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber
• Project: Informal Review of Sketch Site Plan – Car Lot
5
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Location: 7.-1- 85 - 1725 Danby Rd.
Applicant: Justin Craig
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Declaration of Lead Agency
Project Description: The Applicant proposes building a parking lot for the display and sale of
vehicles and requests guidance on site plan and special permit requirements including review
process and what is required to be shown on a site plan and what will be waived.
Planner West said the applicant wants to build a small used car sales lot, which is allowed in the
Commercial C zone with a special use permit and site plan review. The applicant would like to know what
the Board would like to see on a site plan as the Ordinance does not specify this. He drew attention to a list
of possible requirements. He noted the proposal does not include any new buildings. As mentioned in his
memo, West said that the Board may want to consider the preservation and protection of existing trees and
vegetation to prevent additional runoff from impacting the stream.
Bergman brought up the Town’s Commercial Design Guidelines and asked about how that would fit in with
the project, for example with signage.
The applicant, Mr. Craig, was present with his brother, who is also a partner in the business. Mr. Craig said
they are trying to be able to sell two or three cars at a time in the front lawn area. He said they were
thinking of a small sign between the ditch area and the garage. In response to a question from Chair
Scriber, he described exactly where the cars would be located. He said the submitted drawing was
sketched in based on a satellite view of the property.
Maragni asked if the house would remain residential, and the applicant said it would. She asked if the lot
would be paved or graveled, and the applicant thought just gravel at this point. Regarding the sign, she
asked about how big it would be and whether it would be lit up. Scriber also asked what the sign would look
like. The applicant said he thought black lettering on a white sign, probably not lit; he thought it would fit in
well. Planner West asked if he could make a sketch of that with dimensions. Scriber also asked that he
show the material of the sign.
Planner West said the Board should consider how much more formal they wanted the site plan to become;
for example, do they need something hand-drawn to scale or something by a landscape architect. Davis
said he would be comfortable with hand-drawn to scale. He asked that Mr. Craig put the trees that are
currently there on the site plan.
Scriber added that she would like to see the drainage ditch more clearly as she was concerned what drains
into it and where it goes. Planner West said it is culverted and looks like a ditch in this location, but it is
technically a stream that runs into Buttermilk. Scriber asked if they would be working on the cars and if
anything could get into the groundwater. Mr. Craig said they would just be selling them at this point; they
would not be a registered repair shop. Bergman said that, regarding runoff, gravel is more porous than
paved. He mentioned the possibility of a pitch going away from the ditch and that the applicant should
consider how much runoff the project will cause and how much will run through it. He said, especially since
it goes into Buttermilk, they should try not to have water rushing off in that direc tion.
Scriber asked about landscaping around what they are doing to enhance it or help it fit with the rural
character that the Town is hoping to maintain. Mr. Craig said he could put some shrubbery or ornamental
grass to make it fit nicely, and Scriber thought that would be great. Richards added that controlling runoff is
6
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
the concern because the back side of the house is wetland and there is the stream in front; shrubs will help
mitigate runoff. He said the goal is to keep velocity down, and to do it in a sheet manner rather than
ditching it.
Jett said she presumed the driveway would be enlarged by 25’. The applicant said yes, and it would
probably be gravel and extend to the edge of the road. Jett asked if that needed special approval. Richards
thought probably not if they did not need to add a culvert.
Scriber asked how close other properties on the same side of the road are. Mr. Craig said th e property has
400’ of road frontage. He was not sure of distances to the neighboring houses.
Planner West summarized that the Board wanted the drawing to scale, which will allow it to evaluate
setbacks and the other requirements, a to-scale sketch of the sign specifying materials and indicating if
there will be lighting, the locations of the trees that are there, and a landscaping plan for how to deal with
runoff to keep it out of the stream.
MOTION: Declare the Planning Board Lead Agency
Moved by Davis, seconded by Bergman
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber
• Project: Informal Review of Sketch Site Plan – Home and Garage
Location: 7.-1- 43.222 – E. Miller Rd.
Applicant: Michael Nelson
Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Declaration of Lead Agency
Project Description: The Applicant proposes the construction of a single-family home, a garage,
and a shed as well as the creation of a driveway to access these buildings. Site plan review was
required as a condition of subdivision approval when this lot was requi red. The applicant wishes to
build the garage before the house in order to secure equipment and building materials as well as
tools for maintaining the land and requests the planning board’s guidance on site plan review
requirements including review process, what is required to be shown, and what requirements the
Planning Board will waive. At this time the house has not been designed though the general
footprint is estimated on the sketch.
Planner West explained that Mr. Nelson would like to build a house, a garage, and a shed on the property.
The Board placed a requirement for site plan review for subsequent development on the lot when it was
subdivided as well as additional setbacks. West said Mr. Nelson would prefer to build his garage first to
prepare for building the house. The Board should let the applicant know what additional details it needs to
complete site plan review. He said the Board should think about the ability to have a garage, an accessory
use, that precedes the construction of the home. He thought there was a strong argument that if there is a
site plan that includes a home, and you need the storage space to build that home, it makes sense that the
garage could be accessory for a short period of time but not forever. He said the Town’s attorney has
suggested considering a requirement that the home be built within a certain amount of time; two years
might make sense to keep the use accessory to the residential use . He said Mr. Nelson has asked the
7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Board to waive the requirements for elevations for approval of the site plan because the site plan was
intended to protect the conditions that were put on the parcel. West said he had provided the Board with a
list the Town has used in the past for site plan review. In this case, he noted it is a single-family house,
which is relatively low impact, so the Board should consider what is necessary in terms of its review to carry
out what it set forward in the requirements for subdivision.
Davis said he recollected that their concerns about the placement of the house were related to it curving
around behind a neighboring residence rather than the conformation of the flag lot. He asked to see where
the existing house of the neighbor is to consider their viewshed. He also questioned whether the Board
might want to put things on hold if there is a legal challenge pending and asked what would happen if a suit
said the BZA ruling was invalid. Planner West said he had spoken with the Town attorney, and at this point
there was nothing stopping the applicant from moving forward with an application as he has every right to
apply and every right to the process. He said the second part of Davis’ question would be inappropriate to
discuss because the Town is involved in a case.
Maragni said the sketch looked like everything was being planned according to what the Planning Board
had asked and she was not seeing much wrong with it at this time. She added that it made sense to her to
build the garage first as that seemed like a great way to build a house.
Jett agreed with Maragni that the applicant had drawn out exactly what it was they had had concerns about
prior.
Richards said he had driven by and had trouble figuring out where the corners of the property were. He
said he tried to look at it from the neighbor’s point of view to see how much impact it would have on their
viewshed. He did not see where it would have more of an impact than if someone quit mowing the lot and
trees grew up. He agreed the proposed sketch stuck in the Board’s guidelines.
Chair Scriber said she thought the suggestion of two years made sense to her. Mr. Nelson said he would
be happy to sign something saying he would build a house at the location. However, he said he could not
guarantee his finances in two years with the way the country is, so while he did not foresee problems, he
wondered what would happen if he did not build. Davis expressed sympathy with this sentiment and posed
the question, what if he never wanted to build a house and just have a garage? Town Supervisor Gagnon
said the problem is that the Town’s zoning only allows one accessory building, and it has to be accessory
to a primary use; it would not be a problem if it was an agricultural building. The listed possible uses in the
Low Density Residential zone only include a single-family or two-family house, one accessory storage
building, and a garage; if there is no house, it is not accessory to a house. Planner West said the way the
Ordinance describes accessory and primary is in terms of use. A garage is allowed as an accessory to a
residential use of the property, so there has to be a residential use established. He thought it was
reasonable to say that getting an approved site plan and working on a building permit for a house is a
residential use, which a garage could then be accessory to within some limitations. For example, it could be
contingent on a house being built within a certain amount of time, and if there was an issue with financing
8
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
an extension could be asked for and reviewed. You could not have a garage on a property in perpetuity. He
thought two years was a reasonable starting place.
Mr. Berger, an adjacent homeowner, said he did not understand whether the garage would be a temporary
structure and if it could ultimately be turned into an apartment lawf ully. Planner West said not by right in
terms of the apartment question. He said the proposal for a garage is not temporary; what is temporary is it
existing without a house that it is related to. Mr. Berger pointed out that he would be looking at the gara ge
when he looks out his bedroom window. He said it is a large plot of land and the applicant was choosing to
put the garage right in his line of sight. He thought that if he wanted to build the very same garage on his
side of the property line, he would be required to observe a 75’ setback. (Secretary’s note: An accessory
structure can be 10’ from a rear yard.) Mr. Berger said that based on the BZA’s resolution on the request
for the variance, absent anything the Planning Board did, Mr. Nelson could have built the garage 2’ from
that property line. He asked why this would be so, and Planner West answered that that is the way the
zoning is written. Mr. Berger said he would assume when the zoning is written, it is not arbitrary and there
is some logic and fairness. West said he understood how it seems confusing, but it is applying the rules as
they are written.
Mr. Nelson asked if he could put a fence up without a Planning Board review, and Planner West said he
would get back to him about the fence requirements. Mr. Nelson said it would be over 150’ from Mr.
Berger’s residence to the corner of his proposed shed, which means his garage will be farther away from
Mr. Berger than Mr. Berger’s neighbor on the other side, and his residence will be over 250’ away. He
added that while Mr. Berger would have to see his house, he will have to see Mr. Berger’s solar panels,
which Mr. Berger recently put up and got a variance for, and they will be reflecting directly at him no matter
where he puts his house. Mr. Berger responded that the solar panels are part of something Danby
supports, i.e., supporting renewable energy, and the house on the other side of him has a conifer line
creating shielding. Regarding the location of the garage and residence, Mr. Nelson noted that he is looking
at a 300’ driveway as it is, which is a major expense, and he d id not think he could afford to put it back
farther.
Planner West summarized that it seemed like the Board thought what Mr. Nelson submitted already had
the detail it needed for the analysis it wanted to do for site plan review, and Mr. Nelson could move forward
by working to put in an application.
MOTION: Declare the Planning Board Lead Agency
Moved by Bergman, seconded by Richards
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber
(6) PLANNING GROUP UPDATE
9
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Joel Gagnon, Chair of the Planning Group, reported that Planner West gave a comprehensive review of
options for conserving open space at the last meeting on January 5th. The next step is to convene the
conservation and hamlet working groups, and those meetings have been scheduled. He encouraged
anybody to jump in at any point. Maragni added to this saying that the meetings have been really
informative and productive and she highly encourages anyone interested to come by.
(7) PLANNER’S REPORT
Planner West said he is halfway through his first month as full-time planner. He is looking at lists from
previous planners of things they wanted to update or change and how to improve processes. The Town is
working on the Planning Group and putting together a policy for the water district to allow for any adjacent
property owners to tap into that if needed and how the Town would evaluate that.
(8) SELECTION OF VICE CHAIR
MOTION: Elect Ed Bergman as Vice Chair
Moved by Bergman, seconded by Richards
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber
(9) ADJOURNMENT
Chair Scriber asked Secretary de Villiers to write a thank you note from the Board to the previous Chair,
Jim Rundle.
Scriber also brought up the topic of trainings. Planner West said he would be in touch with a tracking
spreadsheet.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
___________________________________________
Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary